Gene, I have great respect for you - but disagree with most of what you
said.
I despise racism and all forms of bigotry as much as anyone here - but this
case is about something else, and this is certainly not the way to deal
with it.

>And in any other jurisdiction for that matter. The real problem becomes
>evident when these people decide to re-write history in their own
>warped view and pass it off as fact without a disclaimer that it just
>their view.

So people need to be protected from their inability to do their own
research and fact-checking and reaching their own conclusions?
There are innumerable instances of people publishing and publicly speaking
about their 'warped' views - and they are not rotting in jail for it.
Should we also outlaw the flat-earth society, and countless other
ideologies that dispute conventionally accepted views of science or
history?
Should we outlaw *any* questioning of the *official* versions of history,
science, or religion?
There are people who believe Jesus never existed - or that if he did, he
was not crucified.
Should they be locked up too?
I'm sure that is hurtful and highly offensive to millions of Christians.
Is asking questions and voicing a dissenting opinion now to be
criminalized?
If we are to return to the days of inquisitions then it is the gene pool of
the inquisitors that humanity could arguably do without.
I question the *official* version of *everything* - and will continue to do
so.
If that causes me to be brought to trial before a Sanhedrin - then they can
kiss my ass.

This was a *heresy* trial - nothing more.
He harmed *no one* by expressing his views.
Had he questioned the facts surrounding the generally accepted history of
other examples of ethnic cleansing - and they are countless - including
those taking place at this very moment - he would not have been brought to
trial for them.
The 'Ministry of Truth' took exception to his views because of *which* war
crime he was questioning.
This is just Orwellian crap.

>and then
>become confused because they have no authoritative, guaranteed correct
>version of history to reference

There is no such thing as an 'authoritative, guaranteed correct version of
history' - it doesn't exist.
The *official* versions of history differ from nation to nation and era to
era.
They are replete with propaganda, and are undergoing continual *revision*
at the behest of those in positions of power and authority.

>in order to be fully aware that such
>shamuses are to be treated as exactly that. The rantings of a
>charlatan or mental defective.

So the 'rantings of a charlatan or mental defective' need to be dealt with
by imprisonment?
If so, we need to build huge networks of prisons to house all these
dangerous people and protect society from their dangerous ideas.

How about dealing with them simply by presenting substantiating evidence to
the contrary - or if that fails - simply ignoring them?
Is everyone else to be viewed as so mentally incompetent that they cannot
figure things out for themselves?

>The real problem is when the people who come in contact with this sort
>of writing, and because they see a conspiracy under every garbage can
>lid they pass, begin to believe it, at which point no further
>discussion is going to be fruitfull, rather like argueing with a
>diehard PETA member.

So what?
People will believe what they wish to - often in the face of abundant
evidence to the contrary.
Fanatics are to be found everywhere.
I repeat - so what?
I could argue that those who insisted that Mr. Irving be tried and
imprisoned are fanatics too - and they *have* actually done harm to another
human being as a result of their fanaticism.

>So one may as well just shut the hell up and let darwins nature takes
>its course, which it appears has occured in this instance.

This was not 'nature's' course - this was the course of a government
imposing its own brand of political persecution on an individual whose
views they felt threatened by.
Nature's course would be the inevitable shunning of an absurd or offensive
ideology by intelligent individuals.
(Shunning generally leads to reduced opportunities for reproduction and
likelihood of success in society.)

>Unforch,
>now some jurisdiction is stuck with the bills for humainly feeding,
>medicating and houseing this person that I'd describe as somewhat
>mentally defective and certainly is not a productive member of the
>human race. Worse yet, he will probably be eventually released back
>into an unwary society while his ability to contribute to the gene pool
>is still intact.

>And then he came out of court and promptly altered his opinion again.
>
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4757506.stm>
>Really? I don't believe that he's changed his mind at all. His story
>changes in court, then it changes again the minute he steps outside.
Hmm...

Of course he recanted - he never changed his viewpoint for one moment.
He was simply pressured to say what he did - and apologise - in an attempt
to reduce his jail time.
Inquisitions have a way of doing that to people.

>Well, not everyone believes that "freedom of speech" is more important
>than everything else.

That is abundantly evident.

>He broke the law publicly. What do you expect them to do?

He is a *British* citizen for crissakes!
His seizure and trial in *Austria* is an utter travesty.

[I'm sure I've crossed that invisible line with this post, but it was worth
it to get that off my chest.]